If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

I have no problem with your opinion and I even share some of it's tenets. That However is not what I was getting at. As Hamdan stated Al-qaeda is covered under the Geneva convention..Whether you agree with that or not. As of today that is the law.
Your statement "I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war" .suggests to me that working outside the letter of the law is ok

Also note No where in my posts have I said anything about Al-qaeda falling under the Constitution.

In many cases, the administration appears to have taken its legal positions only to establish precedent for extending Presidential power.

DING-DING-DING! We have a winner.

In writing for the SCOTUS, Justice O'Conner said: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president."

They attempt to assert powers that they themselves would decry should any other administration attempt the same thing. Look at the flip-flop the VP had between his time on the Hill and is time as a member of the Executive or not depending on how he views it at the moment.

Actually, the rule of law applies to citizens and non-citizens and, among non-citizens, it applies to those here legally and those here illegally. If you think about it, this is essential. Otherwise, the government could deny you all rights including habeas corpus simply by declaring you to be a non-citizen. In that case you would not even be able to prove you were a citizen. This is effectively how the administration has attempted to use the declaration of someone to be an "illegal combatant."

The Justice Department argued that the President had sole authority to declare someone to be an illegal combatant and that this decision was not subject to review by anyone including the courts because that would represent a violation of the separation of powers. In thinking about that one, imagine that Obama is creating his giant domestic police force and decides that republicans are illegal combatants. While I may have voted for Obama, I have no more desire to see him with that kind of authority than I did Bush and Vice Pit Bull Cheney.

The fundamental difference between legal residents (citizens or non-citizens) and illegal residents is that the latter may be incercerated indefinitely simply by showing that they are here illegally. They have the right to a hearing to determine the legality of their status. If found to be illegal they may be deported, but not unless there is a country willing to take them (often a problem). In the absence of such a country, they may be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. However, to imprison them for any other crime requires that they be tried for that crime with full protection of law.

The purpose of our rights of due process is not to protect criminals; it is to protect all of us who may be charged with crimes at any time whether we are guilty or not. When you remove due process from one person because you know they are guilty, you remove it from all of us regardless of guilt or innocence. The Bush administration does not want to face this constraint of justice for a few different reasons:

It doesn't want to disclose the nature or source of its evidence for fear of compromising intelligence sources.

It doesn't have evidence that would withstand examination.

The evidence it has was gathered through torture or other illegal activities.

For the first consideration, courts have long had procedures under which a judge would review the evidence to determine how to balance the requirements of justice with those of security. For the others, Judges generally have no patience.

For years, the administration has flaunted the requirements of law, justifying its position because of the dangerous characters of those maintained at Guantanamo. Over the years it has also released many of those incarcerated -- some against whom there was no evidence at all and others for reasons not published. In doing so, it has left a huge problem for the Obama administration. Obama, even if he chose to, cannot continue the illegal incarceration without providing procedures for timely judicial review as the courts have demanded. However, as has been apparent in the small number of cases the administration has prosecuted, the evidence is not necessarily strong even by the relaxed standards applied by the tribunal. As a consequence, many if not most of the people incarcerated will need to be released even though few or no countries are willing to take them. This is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the administration that chose to act in such an illegal manner from the beginning. The administration has known this for some time and has simply dragged its feet knowing that it would be able to avoid accountability by waiting until Bush's term expired and they could all leave town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K.BullockShould we sit idly by and let it happen?

Have you seen ANYTHING that suggests that is what is being suggested?

Plain Regards,

Joe S.

Not securing our southern borders suggests that exactly. They have siezed quite a few of them already. And since it appears to be a catch and release system who knows what kind of vermon reside here.

I'm sure there are thousands of them setting up shop as we speak.

What is stopping them from coming in from the south. Its a living, breathing, invisable trojen horse.

Pete

You do know that the President as Commander-In-Chief, makes that decision, right?

Had troops been deployed across the southern border in stead of Iraq, I'd been all for it. Several news organizations have reported "confirmed" contacts between aQ and MS-13. MS-13 is just plain bad news...

Otherwise, the government could deny you all rights including habeas corpus simply by declaring you to be a non-citizen. In that case you would not even be able to prove you were a citizen. This is effectively how the administration has attempted to use the declaration of someone to be an "illegal combatant."

Gosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to?

For years, the administration has flaunted the requirements of law, justifying its position because of the dangerous characters of those maintained at Guantanamo. Over the years it has also released many of those incarcerated -- some against whom there was no evidence at all and others for reasons not published.

Nearly 7 out of 10 Gitmo detainees have been released, with another 20% of the remaining ready to go but there's either no country that will take them or they'll be treated harsher than at Gitmo. I think you'd be making a mistake to equate their release with a lack of evidence or "no evidence at all" against them, unless of course you're asserting gross incompetence by the military in capturing them in the first place. Common sense would seem to indicate that the "reasons not published" for previous releases likely include: they've been detained a reasonable amount of time relative to their crime, they're no longer of use to us, they're no longer considered a threat to us, or a combination of all of the above. Perhaps you'd care to vouch for, and take in as borders, some of those remaining 20%...they being so innocent and all?

In doing so, it has left a huge problem for the Obama administration. Obama, even if he chose to, cannot continue the illegal incarceration without providing procedures for timely judicial review as the courts have demanded. However, as has been apparent in the small number of cases the administration has prosecuted, the evidence is not necessarily strong even by the relaxed standards applied by the tribunal. As a consequence, many if not most of the people incarcerated will need to be released even though few or no countries are willing to take them. This is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the administration that chose to act in such an illegal manner from the beginning.

LOL. A preemptive strike at excusing Obama from fulfilling his campaign promises re: Gitmo/detainees and he hasn't even taken office yet?!? Classic. It's going to be funny (but a relief) when a year after Obama is sworn in and Gitmo is still running strong. Obama (and his sycophants) are discovering that it's a lot easier to toss bombs from the back bench than it is to have the buck stop on his desk.

The administration has known this for some time and has simply dragged its feet knowing that it would be able to avoid accountability by waiting until Bush's term expired and they could all leave town.

That's a load of poo. Resolution of individual detainees' cases has been an on-going process since they first opened Gitmo (that's how nearly 70% have been released). Congress passed two different laws pertaining to military tribunals (both with the significant support of conservative Democrats) and the Bush Admin. was proceeding accordingly. The Supreme Court threw yet another wrench in the works this past summer. Sorry Bush couldn't get it all resolved to your liking in the past 3 months. I'm guessing by your preemptive excuse making for Obama that you don't have much faith that Barry's gonna get it all ironed out to your satisfaction in the next four years.

Gosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to?

A small number and it backed down immediately on those. The "problem" is that under international law, treaty obligations, and U.S. law (most notably the Constitution), there are only two real vehicles for handling prisoners in a declared or undeclared war. The first is to treat them as prisoners of war subject to all protections and guarantees of the Geneva Convention. The second is to treat them as criminals under the laws of the country where they conducted their activities and were first detained, under International Law for war crimes, or under U.S. laws. In each of these venues, prisoners have rights and the captors have responsibilities to uphold those rights. This structure has operated with a lot of success and a few blemishes for a lot of conflicts both more and less serious than the "war on terror."

The problem of Guantanamo arose from the fact that the administration decided that all of these niceties were too inconvenient. It invented legal theories out of thin air in an effort to show that protections that have been part of our common law since 1640 and were considered pretty important to our founders are now irrelevant if the President decides they are inconvenient. That decision has haunted the administration as every court decision has basically said, "Hey guys, you can't just make up whatever laws you want when the old ones are inconvenient."

Originally Posted by Hew

Nearly 7 out of 10 Gitmo detainees have been released, with another 20% of the remaining ready to go but there's either no country that will take them or they'll be treated harsher than at Gitmo. I think you'd be making a mistake to equate their release with a lack of evidence or "no evidence at all" against them, unless of course you're asserting gross incompetence by the military in capturing them in the first place. Common sense would seem to indicate that the "reasons not published" for previous releases likely include: they've been detained a reasonable amount of time relative to their crime, they're no longer of use to us, they're no longer considered a threat to us, or a combination of all of the above. Perhaps you'd care to vouch for, and take in as borders, some of those remaining 20%...they being so innocent and all?

Each of those prisoners could have been a Mother Theresa at the time they were "collected" but could now be expected to be full-fledged America hating potential supporters for other America hating organizations for the rest of their lives. I know I would be if I had been treated the same way. There is no way this situation will ever be resolved without negative consequences for the U.S. We are, unfortunately, reaping that which we sowed. Does that mean I am claiming that the detainees were "innocent?" No. However, a theater of war is not noted as being a place where fine distinctions are made between the "guilty" and the "innocent." In 2006, Republican Senator Arlen Spector stated that most of the prisoners were being held of "the flimsiest sort of hearsay."

Originally Posted by Hew

LOL. A preemptive strike at excusing Obama from fulfilling his campaign promises re: Gitmo/detainees and he hasn't even taken office yet?!? Classic. It's going to be funny (but a relief) when a year after Obama is sworn in and Gitmo is still running strong. Obama (and his sycophants) are discovering that it's a lot easier to toss bombs from the back bench than it is to have the buck stop on his desk.

The buck was printed, framed and placed proudly on the President's desk by George himself almost six years ago. The intervening years have only made it worse. I don't think it's going to be at all easy to resolve.

Originally Posted by Hew

That's a load of poo. Resolution of individual detainees' cases has been an on-going process since they first opened Gitmo (that's how nearly 70% have been released). Congress passed two different laws pertaining to military tribunals (both with the significant support of conservative Democrats) and the Bush Admin. was proceeding accordingly. The Supreme Court threw yet another wrench in the works this past summer. Sorry Bush couldn't get it all resolved to your liking in the past 3 months. I'm guessing by your preemptive excuse making for Obama that you don't have much faith that Barry's gonna get it all ironed out to your satisfaction in the next four years.

About 775 persons have been detained at Guantanamo as part of the war on terror. In 2005, 170+ were released without charge and about 70 were sent to other countries for detention. By 2005, 343 prisoners had received administrative reviews of their cases. A small number were cleared. 40% have not yet received any determination based on their hearing. The rest were identified for further detention or for transfer to other countries. Only two prisoners have been tried under the revised procedures and the administration was embarrassed by the results of both cases.

On balance, I believe that the activities of the administration at Guantanamo have done more damage to the interests of the United States than would have been done by any of the persons detained even had they simply been released back into the mountains of Afghanistan. Colin Powell said it well, "Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it," (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...0?feedType=RSS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HewGosh, that sounds horrible. How many US citizens did Bush and his henchmen do that to?

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

A small number and it backed down immediately on those. A "small number" indeed. Two (2) is the exact number of US citizens held without charge as a result of the War on Terror. As for the "backing down"...stopped completely after the Supreme Court ruling in '04 would be the most accurate framing of it. The "problem" is that under international law, treaty obligations, and U.S. law (most notably the Constitution), there are only two real vehicles for handling prisoners in a declared or undeclared war. Perhaps you can quote the most notable section of the Constitution dealing with foreign prisoners captured abroad? Good luck with that. The first is to treat them as prisoners of war subject to all protections and guarantees of the Geneva Convention. The second is to treat them as criminals under the laws of the country where they conducted their activities and were first detained, under International Law for war crimes, or under U.S. laws. In each of these venues, prisoners have rights and the captors have responsibilities to uphold those rights. This structure has operated with a lot of success and a few blemishes for a lot of conflicts both more and less serious than the "war on terror." That's all well and good, but my quote above that you're responding to was related to your original contention...you implied that the Bush Admin routinely denied habeas corpus to US citizens. They didn't. It happened twice and was stopped in 2004. Extending legal rights to foreign murderers captured abroad in an undeclared war is a distinctly seperate issue.

The problem of Guantanamo arose from the fact that the administration decided that all of these niceties were too inconvenient. It invented legal theories out of thin air in an effort to show that protections that have been part of our common law since 1640 and were considered pretty important to our founders are now irrelevant if the President decides they are inconvenient. I'm rather confident that the founding fathers fought and died for those legal protections for AMERICAN CITIZENS; and not for legal protections for foreigners captured abroad trying to KILL American citizens. As an aside, I always find it amusing when liberals, who believe that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document subject to change," trot out the founding fathers' intentions...as if they actually put any stock in those intentions other than the rare instances where it actually suits their argument. But I digress... There is indeed precedent in our current handling of terrorists. In '42 we captured eight German saboteurs in the US. Roosevelt had them tried by secret military tribunal and six of them were executed...all within two months of their capture. That decision has haunted the administration as every court decision has basically said, "Hey guys, you can't just make up whatever laws you want when the old ones are inconvenient."

Each of those prisoners could have been a Mother Theresa at the time they were "collected" but could now be expected to be full-fledged America hating potential supporters for other America hating organizations for the rest of their lives. Yes, and each of those prisoners could be citizens of the planet Klebnor. But I'm rather confident that the majority were/are murderous scum caught in the act of harming Americans or caught in the act of planning to hurt Americans. I know I would be if I had been treated the same way. There is no way this situation will ever be resolved without negative consequences for the U.S. We are, unfortunately, reaping that which we sowed. America's chickens are coming home....to roost, eh? Does that mean I am claiming that the detainees were "innocent?" No. However, a theater of war is not noted as being a place where fine distinctions are made between the "guilty" and the "innocent." In 2006, Republican Senator Arlen Spector stated that most of the prisoners were being held of "the flimsiest sort of hearsay." And 2000 Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman says Obama lacks experience to be president. Your point?

The buck was printed, framed and placed proudly on the President's desk by George himself almost six years ago. The intervening years have only made it worse. I don't think it's going to be at all easy to resolve. Of course it's not easy to resolve. What to do with those detainees wasn't an easy problem to begin with (unless you want to pretend that there's examples/blueprints for our country on how to deal with the wholesale battlefield capture of thousands of countryless foreigners, many with valuable/needed information, in an undeclared war that has no borders or boundries and no precedence in our history). But you're free to pretend Bush relished the opportunity to "throw our Constitution out the window" dealing with murdering asshats. Just as you're free to pretend that Obama's choices are limited on what to do once he assumes office. There's not a damn thing stopping him from keeping his campaign promise of shutting down Gitmo and trying the remaining detainees the day after he assumes office. Something tells me that a year from then, when Gitmo's still open for business, the lefts keening over Obama's trampling of "rights" for those detainees won't be nearly as loud it is now.